Event helmet cobblers

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 577
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by Wanlock Dod »

Perhaps they like the ambiguity of it, because then they can satisfy non-helmeteers with choice, but leave the wording sufficiently ambiguous that it is frequently interpreted as compulsion all round, which so many people just assume is the status quo that they never think to question it. It sounds like just the thing that a committee with quite a few helmet promoters and the odd anti-helmet extremist might promote.
User avatar
Paulatic
Posts: 6340
Joined: 2 Feb 2014, 1:03pm
Location: 24 Hours from Lands End

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by Paulatic »

It’s a poser isn’t it?
Why is there a comma after sportive? It does absolutely nothing in my book. Now if you were to add another comma
"Please note that while taking part in a British Cycling sanctioned race or sportive, the use of a helmet conforming to a recognised safety standard, is mandatory. "
To me that sentence now makes sense and is clearly saying a helmet is mandatory and within the commas it qualifies what sort of helmet. I suspect who ever originally wrote it is under 50 yo and never learnt grammar like wot I did :D
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life

https://stcleve.wordpress.com/category/lejog/
E2E info
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 53027
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by Mick F »

mjr wrote:That is not the whole thing. Find the full "guidelines" PDF.
Got a link?
I can't see one unless I download each of the sections.
Mick F. Cornwall
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 53027
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by Mick F »

Paulatic wrote:It’s a poser isn’t it?
Why is there a comma after sportive? It does absolutely nothing in my book. Now if you were to add another comma
"Please note that while taking part in a British Cycling sanctioned race or sportive, the use of a helmet conforming to a recognised safety standard, is mandatory. "
To me that sentence now makes sense and is clearly saying a helmet is mandatory and within the commas it qualifies what sort of helmet. I suspect who ever originally wrote it is under 50 yo and never learnt grammar like wot I did :D
Could be!

Terrible grammar if they mean that helmets are mandatory, but they say it's an individual's choice previously.
As I say, I'm not taking it further because one, I'm not wearing a helmet no matter what their "rules" are, and two, I don't want to do their rides no matter what!
Mick F. Cornwall
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by meic »

My interpretation was more on logical grounds than grammatical ones.
Why on earth would it be mandatory for the helmet on the cyclist next to me to meet standards when I can ride in a cycle cap, a bobble hat, bare headed or any other unregulated head gear.
Yma o Hyd
amediasatex
Posts: 817
Joined: 2 Nov 2015, 12:51pm
Location: Sunny Devon! just East of the Moor

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by amediasatex »

It still doesn’t specify that it has to conform to a recognised ‘cycling’ safety standard, just that it must conform to ‘a’ recognised safety standard...
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 53027
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by Mick F »

I took it to mean that they specified the type and design of helmet - if you were to wear one - and that it was mandatory that it complied to accepted standards.

They've already said for it to be correctly fitting, but it could be a correctly fitted skate-board helmet.

There was no statement to the effect ........
............ that it is mandatory that you should wear a correctly fitted cycling helmet of the accepted design which conforms to recognised standards.
Mick F. Cornwall
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by meic »

That would mean that they were imposing a ban on cycle helmets that dont meet the standards while allowing any other headgear. That would be a totally illogical thing to do.
Yma o Hyd
amediasatex
Posts: 817
Joined: 2 Nov 2015, 12:51pm
Location: Sunny Devon! just East of the Moor

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by amediasatex »

meic wrote:That would mean that they were imposing a ban on cycle helmets that dont meet the standards while allowing any other headgear. That would be a totally illogical thing to do.


Agreed, it would be illogical, but the thing with rules and mandatory requirements is that they have to be clear and unambiguous. As it is currently worded it’s very poor.
User avatar
Paulatic
Posts: 6340
Joined: 2 Feb 2014, 1:03pm
Location: 24 Hours from Lands End

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by Paulatic »

meic wrote:My interpretation was more on logical grounds than grammatical ones.
Why on earth would it be mandatory for the helmet on the cyclist next to me to meet standards when I can ride in a cycle cap, a bobble hat, bare headed or any other unregulated head gear.

But you can’t ride beside them in a BC sanctioned race or sportive.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life

https://stcleve.wordpress.com/category/lejog/
E2E info
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by meic »

But in Mick's interpretation you could.
Yma o Hyd
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 17597
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by mjr »

Mick F wrote:
mjr wrote:That is not the whole thing. Find the full "guidelines" PDF.
Got a link?
I can't see one unless I download each of the sections.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi ... elines.pdf

"The wearing of hard shell helmets conforming to CE standards EN1078 is mandatory for all riders participating in British Cycling registered events."

BC don't follow their own policy.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 53027
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by Mick F »

Thanks.
I actually do own a helmet - not worn for over three years. I wish I could sell it, but who would buy a secondhand helmet?
Just looked at the label inside.
EN1078/A1/2005E(1)

What does all that mean?
Does it comply?
What happens if I remove the label, can I still take part?
Will they check?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Mick F. Cornwall
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5490
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by RickH »

The demarcation in BC seems to be between "organised events", even if these aren't competitive, and the definitely "Leisure" side with their "Let's Ride" programme, where helmets are only recommended (despite what some Breeze leaders seem to think). I would definitely challenge it if it was ever questioned if I turned up without one.

We've not tried signing up for a Breeze ride although I'm a regular with Chester Fab Ladies in my role as tandem pilot for a sight impaired lady! Neither of us wear helmets these days either but it is under the auspices of Cycling UK so not a problem. :D

The more I think about it the more I'm tempted to try it to see which caused the biggest stir - a bloke (in an enabling role) on a ladies ride or lack of helmets. :twisted:
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 17597
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Event helmet cobblers

Post by mjr »

Mick F wrote:EN1078/A1/2005E(1)

What does all that mean?
Does it comply?
What happens if I remove the label, can I still take part?
Will they check?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I guess it's a marking showing it's been tested against some 2005 version of the standard - it sucks that these markings don't seem to be easy to decipher, with no good online guides that I found.

Yes, it complies. If you remove the label, it would still comply but I don't see how they'd be able to tell. No, they won't check and that's part of how you can tell that this is a pantomime rather than a useful safety measure.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Post Reply